Just another WordPress.com site

Category Archives: Uncategorized

This quote comes from the comments section on Biblical Personhood. The post is entitled When Soft Complementarianism is Too Hard: Part II

“Here’s what really bothers me– the way in complementarianism, definitions change depending on who’s doing it. The man in this scenario could decide to listen to his wife– he could say, ‘She knows more than me about this, so I’m choosing her way’ — and when he does that, it will be called ‘leadership.’ ‘He’s such a good leader, he appreciates his wife’s expertise.’ BUT if the thing was reversed– if the husband was the one with greater investment experience, and the wife chose to listen to him– THAT would be called ‘submission.’ ‘She’s such a good submissive wife, she yields to her husband.’

But it’s the exact same action– one partner deferring to the other’s expertise.

This is absolutely true: I see it happen all the time. What’s happening is that husbands are functioning in the same way as wives by bringing their gifts to the marriage and using them productively. What makes it “complementarian” is that words are used to mean different things, even though they’re talking about the same exact action. So why is this being done? Because it’s not really important what the husband or wife does; it’s where they stand in the hierarchy of marriage. Husbands lead, wives submit. So even if the wife is “leading” in an area in the marriage, they have to say the husband “defers to her”, because a wife leading doesn’t fit into the definition of complementarianism. It’s a disingenuous, insincere, twisting of words to promote an idea.

There’s a very good post on Emotional Abuse and Your Faith about Mary Kassian’s teaching at the True Woman Conference(2008) entitled “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby!”. You can read the entire post here and listen to Kassian’s talk, which is about how modern women fancy themselves liberated from the patriarchy of the 1950’s, and that somehow this is a bad thing…somehow.

Hannah’s post does a great job of going through each point and shedding light on the fact that while Kassian uses the 1950’s era as an example of “the good ole days” for morals and gender roles, she completely ignores the negative aspects of the times. It’s a good post and you should read it; it will make you think, and that’s a great thing!

There is one thing from the video that Hannah didn’t comment on, though. If you take the time to watch the video, let me draw your attention to the section from 3:38-4:00, during which Kassian refers to an advertisement in which a woman is being dragged off a beach by two policemen because she is dressed immodestly. The woman is depicted as shouting, “Someday, we’ll be able to wear any bathing suit we want!” (She also mentions women having their own cigarettes, but it’s a cigarette ad, so that part doesn’t concern me.)

What does concern me that is that Mary Kassian is depicting the woman’s desire to wear “any bathing suit” she wants as a bad thing. What in the world? Has she ever heard of the Taliban?? How women in Afghanistan would be beaten with sticks by the Taliban if their ankles showed below their burqas? Does Mary Kassian really want women to follow some dress code of modesty at public beaches and swimming pools? Is this the kind of world she would have us living in? Should law enforcement be able to dictate what women wear? It’s absolutely ridiculous and I just cannot understand the point she’s trying to make here. There are women all over the world, right now, fighting for basic rights that we take for granted. Being able to choose your own wardrobe would be one of those rights. Do we Christians really want to take a stand against women being able to choose what they wear?

This is just one of the problems I have with Kassian’s teaching about the “good ole days”. There were so many problems during that era, so much denial and pain. Let’s not pretend it’s a golden era we’ve lost, and if only we’d follow the rules then everything would be rainbows and butterflies. This is a lie. It is a lie that women should not have control over their lives, their wardrobes, and their career choices.(Of course, I acknowledge God’s ultimate sovereignty in our lives; I simply believe that women should have the same autonomy that men have typically enjoyed.) Again, I recommend Hannah’s post, as she goes through all the problems with Kassian’s view that the ’50’s were a superior decade than the current one, another lie.

While reading this article(which is actually a critique of another article) at CBMW’s website, I was happy to see a complementarian recognize the current tendency for some Christians to idolize marriage and marginalize singles, and to acknowledge that women’s need and desire to study the deep theological themes of Scripture rather than only the themes that allude to homemaking and motherhood, has grown.

But…

I must comment on the one little part that stood out to me, and not in a positive way(there are other good and bad points in the post, but I won’t get into them here). The belief that women who do not embrace homemaking as a career are selfish, prideful money-hoarders appears to be alive and well among some complementarians. Strachan implies this idea here(bold mine) ~

~”I would note that we don’t want to pit careful attention to homemaking, for example, against pondering the extracalvinisticum. Older women are called to mentor younger women, which clearly calls for biblically-fueled discipleship that will involve both doctrine and the application of doctrine (Titus 2:3-5). With many, I am grateful that the complementarian movement has seen several exemplary resources on godly motherhood and homemaking pop up in the last decade or so. May their number only proliferate. Everywhere women are being encouraged to “lean in” and leave their kids and homes, and yet there are many, many Christian women who have not bowed the knee to Facebook (sorry, Sheryl Sandberg).

Praise God for this, for the scores of intelligent, gifted, creative, well-trained, deeply thoughtful women in our churches who have embraced the scriptural call to the domestic arts. (Our culture foolishly construes “value” in terms of money and career. Did we learn nothing from the spectacular crash of Marxist thought in the twentieth-century? But I digress.)”

Here we have yet another complementarian mistaking women’s desire for a meaningful career with the sinful desire for money. There are so many problems with this view. For one thing, are all women who work really doing it so they can make more money and therefore accumulate frivolous material wealth? Is the prevailing belief in our culture that both husbands and wives should both work so they can buy more and more stuff? Yes, there are people like this in our society, no doubt about that. But from my view, most folks I know are just trying to keep their heads above water and pay their bills. And yes, they’d like a little enjoyment out of life, too(like the ability to get pizza for dinner now and then, not buy a Corvette or anything like that). Many people today can’t survive on one income, really. Many, many women work because they need the money, not because they’re bowing to culture.

There’s another aspect this author ignores; Christian women want to do meaningful things in their lives, and that doesn’t always include the “domestic arts”. Whether it’s volunteering, writing, painting, or working for wages, women crave meaningful work. Many women don’t enjoy the “domestic arts”, and they find themselves depressed and floundering as homemakers, wondering how they can be used in other ways. Exploring these feelings of depression and emptiness doesn’t mean they’re neglecting their home and children any more than the men who work to provide for their families are neglecting their families.

By claiming that “embracing the domestic arts” is the scriptural call for all women, and that women who don’t embrace it are “foolish”, Owen Strachan has created a divide. He is pushing Christian women away who don’t fit the mold, women like me who question the “biblical” interpretation that leaves me with one choice(which is really no choice at all) of what to do with my life. Now that I’ve questioned and studied the idea that homemaking might not be the only biblical role for women, it would seem that in Owen Strachan’s eyes I am no longer following Scripture, and that I’m a selfish woman who only wants to feed my pride and my bank account. I realize that complementarians and egalitarians are trying to have an open and loving discussion about gender roles, but it seems to me that Strachan’s attitude here doesn’t leave much room for discussion. It shuts the door in the other camp’s face.

This issue needs to be talked about without folks accusing others of being “unbiblical” or “selfishly valuing money and career” above family. Some women find homemaking superficial and empty, or they discover hidden gifts that should be explored. What Strachan says about women who don’t “embrace the domestic arts” isn’t going to help further the discussion; it immediately shuts it down. This attitude pushes women away who are asking legitimate questions about the Bible. It’s time for CBMW to get past this false idea that “real” Christian women pursue homemaking, and that those who don’t are selfish and prideful. Now that we Christian women have been studying the Bible for ourselves, we know better.

I was a bit skeptical when I saw the Carolyn Custis James included Noah’s wife in her book, Lost Women of the Bible. There isn’t much to tell, is there? The Bible doesn’t say very much about Mrs. Noah. It doesn’t even tell us her name. But it turns out that the fact that Mrs. Noah is all but left out of the narrative is what stands out about her.

~ “Mrs. Noah got lost in her marriage. Among the lost women of the Bible, she has all but vanished from sight. Her story(which may have been a good one) died with her remains buried to this day because the story that got told was her husband’s. She was one of eight individuals to survive the world’s worst natural disaster, yet every so-called ‘complete’ list of women in the Bible leaves her out.”

Unfortunately, this can be said of countless women throughout history. The accomplishments of women have been overlooked and ignored. For example, has the average person ever heard of these two amazing women? How about this one? I hope everyone has heard of this woman! Many times the female perspective of the story gets overlooked, as it did with Mrs. Noah. Many times we are even taught that overlooking the woman’s story is the “biblical” thing to do, in order to make it possible for the men to attend to their ministries. Mrs. Noah’s story ~

~ “remains a mystery, unknown and unknowable to us, buried with her body underneath the grass. Still, the lack of information doesn’t prevent us from wondering.”

Mrs. Noah’s life brings about a myriad of questions about what her life must have been like.

“Where does she fit into God’s purposes in her specific time and place? How did she contribute to God’s kingdom? How did being God’s image bearer change her outlook on life? What battles was this ezer called to fight?”

Poor Mrs. Noah does seem to get pushed to the side in favor of her famous husband. But what is known about Mrs. Noah?

“Mrs. Noah could sympathize with women who live in fear of drive-by shootings. Living in a society of violence, she was no stranger to the kinds of anxieties mothers feel when sending their children off to school where the first test they must pass each day is a metal detector.”

James points out that everyone around Noah and his family were oblivious to God’s disapproval of them, and of the impending doom they would soon face. Everyone around her thought her husband was nuts. Noah was in a class all his own(Gen. 6:9). He stood out because he was devoted to God, and was mocked for it. What kinds of struggles did Mrs. Noah have in her heart in the face of her husband’s rejection?

We also know that Mrs. Noah was married and had sons, which granted her the highest status as a woman of her time.

“In ancient times, as in some Third World countries today, the culture gauged a woman’s success and value by the number of sons she bore her husband. Her reproductive successes determined her husband’s stature in the community, not to mention his survival.”

Mrs. Noah was also one of the only human beings to survive this enormous natural disaster. How depressing it must have been to lose nearly everything; most of your possessions, friends, and relatives.

“She had a lot to pass on, for she was God’s image bearer and an ezer. With her husband, she shared the same call to know and walk with God in a dark and evil age. This was her high calling as a woman.”

“Mrs. Noah, along with her husband, was a crucial member of the Blessed Alliance.”

There much that we modern women can relate to in Mrs. Noah. We struggle in our relationships. We doubt God, we doubt his love for us, and whether or not He is going to be faithful to us. We worry about the future and fear the worst. Whether married or single, we are ezers, and therefore members of the Blessed Alliance. James defines the Blessed Alliance as the fact that “At creation, God created his image bearers—male and female—to serve Him together as a Blessed Alliance in every sphere of life. The scope of their mission encompassed ‘all the earth'(Genesis 1:26). Therefore God’s special blessing rests uniquely on this male/female partnership both in marriage and everywhere else (Genesis 1:28). Our world is uncertain and dangerous, and we face many seemingly insurmountable problems in the world and in our lives.”

We(and Mrs. Noah) were not meant to be marginalized; we are an integral part of the Blessed Alliance, called to work alongside men in every sphere of life.

What struggles did Mrs. Noah face? How can we apply those struggles to our own lives? There are many questions we can ask about Mrs. Noah that can directly apply to us now. We can use these questions to explore our own walk with God. We’ll explore these questions in the next post about Mrs. Noah.

Should men listen to or read Bible commentaries written by women? Listen to this podcast featuring John Piper before reading on.

The answer is: a man can use a commentary written by a woman unless he experiences uncomfortable feelings while listening to it.

Piper says the man can listen to the commentary unless he feels like he has come under the author’s authority(even though his feelings have nothing to do with the quality of the commentary, only the gender of the author). The only reason he has for justifying his refusal to listen to or read the commentary is that it is written by a woman and that makes him uncomfortable. However, if the man doesn’t feel like he is under her authority, he can use the commentary.

The point of 1 Timothy 2:12 isn’t that a man cannot learn anything from a woman, Piper says. He assures us that women do have thoughts(I find it interesting that Piper feels the need to point this out). Okay, so women in your church DO have thoughts. They are competent, intelligent. So why can’t a woman have authority over a man if not because of her stupidity or incompetence? Because of the dynamic of womanhood and manhood. I challenge you right now to stop reading this blog now and find a verse/verses in your Bible that address the dynamic between manhood and womanhood…

John Piper says that the only way a woman should influence a man is if it’s indirect. So what he is saying is this: it’s Biblically wrong for a woman to be direct in her interactions with a man. That is, it’s wrong for a woman to be straightforward or frank with a man, to manage or guide him. What do you think? Is it Biblically wrong for a woman to be/do these things? Does the Bible even talk about these things in regard to the way a woman should conduct herself around men? For my own part, I aim to be as direct as possible in my communication with both men and women. Conversely, how would I indirectly influence my husband to listen to my council or to do things the way I think he should? Through manipulation(notice in the definition of “indirect”, it uses words like not forthright and devious). That’s what this teaching leads to; women manipulating men to get what they want or to even share their opinion, because they’re forbidden to be direct with men.

So a man can read a commentary by a woman, as long as he doesn’t get the feeling she has authority over him. It’s a book, so the woman isn’t right there in his face telling him things he doesn’t know(teaching). It’s indirect, so it’s okay, since the man can’t actually see the woman.

Piper says a man can quote from a commentary written by a woman during a sermon because she is not “in his sight” and therefore takes away the “dimension of her female personhood”. This is gender discrimination, and he doesn’t even try to hide it. If he can learn from a woman, it’s okay, as long as he doesn’t have to look at her female body. We should be horrified to hear a person of such broad influence declaring such things to be “Biblical”.

The ideas John Piper expresses in this podcast are not in the Bible, and they are damaging to women and the relationship between men and women. The challenge for us is simple; study the Bible and ask questions about what influential people teach. Are the ideas Piper expresses in this podcast from the Bible? Is it possible that his traditional views on gender have influenced his interpretation?

(As an afterthought, Piper also implies in the podcast that a man cannot flourish when he is directly influenced by the authority of a woman. So what if my husband’s boss is a woman? Should he quit his job? What if he is the sole provider for the family? Should we be thrust into poverty so my husband’s “manhood” is preserved? It’s something to think about.)

~ “Suppose a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.”

~ “The really interesting thing here is that while Piper acknowledges that gender stereotypes do not always line up with reality, and that clinging to traditional gender roles is not always the most efficient, effective way of getting things done, he insists that it is right to cling to them anyway, even at the cost of life, limb, and a competent woman’s conscience. It seems to me that this is because he views masculinity, femininity, and the relationship between men and women as symbolic, almost a Christianized version of Plato’s Theory of Forms. In this paradigm, the individual is subsumed by the ideal, the here-and-now human relationship by the eschatological one it points toward. It doesn’t matter if Sarah has a black belt, and Jason is physically handicapped in some way–the important thing is that they live up to some cosmic ideal of manhood and womanhood, as a way of representing God and humanity’s relationship with Him.”

~ “The complementarianism of, say, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Owen Strachan and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood relies heavily on demanding that all men conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of manhood and that all women conform to rigid, prescriptive standards of womanhood, regardless of personality, giftedness, culture, circumstances, and perhaps most ironically, the very complementary character qualities that often make a relationship work!

This is legalism, plain and simple, for it reduces faithfulness to a list of rules and roles that must be maintained…even when maintaining them is absurd or destructive.”

The chapters in this book are long, but well worth the read! I’m going to sum up the rest of the chapter on Eve as best I can.

From the book ~

“The Bible’s very first statement about Eve is without question the single most important fact we can know about her. ‘God created [mankind] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them’ (Genesis 1:27, emphasis added). God created Eve to bear his image – to be like him. This is the Bible’s starting point for any definition of what is means to be a woman.”

“Eve was created to know and walk with God and to make him known to others by reflecting his character in her life. This is a woman’s true path to fulfillment and meaning – the only way we will ever discover who we are and find our purpose. And it is accessible to all of us.”

What is a woman’s purpose? To glorify God and know Him. It’s simple, and anyone can do it! I love it because it’s completely freeing! There have been some who have attempted to define what it means to be a woman of God, but sadly, these definitions are restrictive and promote legalism.

Eve is also created to be an ezer, because, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”(Genesis 2:18) This used to be interpreted in such a way that the woman’s purpose revolved around homemaking and childcare. But,

“Thinking regarding the ezer began to change when scholars pointed our that the word ezer is used most often(sixteen of twenty-one occurrences) in the Old Testament to refer to God as Israel’s helper in times of trouble. That’s when ezer was upgraded to ‘strong helper,’ leaving Christians debating among themselves over the meaning of ‘strong’ and whether this affects a woman’s rank with respect to the man. Further research indicates ezer is a powerful Hebrew military word whose significance we have barely begun to unpack. The ezer is a warrior, and this has far-reaching implications for women, not only in marriage, but in every relationship, season, and walk of life.”

Oh, how I just love this! Women are made to be strong companions, not dependent burdens. The traditional view of what a woman is – physically weak, too emotional, unreasonable, illogical, and in need of male protection – doesn’t sound like a strong helper to me. As James says ~

“God created the ezer as the man’s staunchest ally in the life of faith and in fulfilling the Cultural Mandate. Together they exercised dominion and labored to advance God’s kingdom in their own hearts and on earth.”

It really is a shame that for so long, the world, including the Christian Church, has viewed the sexes as being at odds with one another. Whether it was the perception of women as not quite human, as temptresses, or as solely put on earth to serve men, these views have been destructive to the Church’s mission in the world. I’m hoping that through books and blogs like this one, we can learn just how important it is that men and women work together, not in separate spheres. We are truly each other’s strongest ally, not opposites fighting for who has the most power.

“God was forging a powerful union between the man and the woman that was essential for the challenges they faced together. Eve brought to this alliance everything God called her to be as image bearer and ezer. God’s plan to reveal his image through humanity involved both male and female. Nowhere does God’s image shine more brightly than when men and women join in serving him together. This vital interaction between men and women enriches every aspect of life. Adam needed Eve’s gifts and strengths to fulfill his calling, and she needed his gifts too.”

It’s because of the fall that we have the never-ending “battle of the sexes”. But it’s not the ideal. Men and women, especially Christian men and women, should be emphasizing what we have in common so we can work together. This would mean putting aside the obsession with the “equal but different” mantra I keep hearing. As Adam did in Genesis 2:23, let’s celebrate the creation and unity of men and women in the Kingdom of God.